If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I'm still not convinced that private individuals could fight a military dictatorship, except with guerilla tactics.

Guerrilla tactics are extremely effective against a large, well financed and well armed foe. Spend five minutes on Google and you'll see just how effective it can be... it has decided most wars of the last 125 years. I know first-hand how effective it is...

On another note, if we play our cards right... there won't be much a "military" to fight against us anyway. There are thousands who will be standing next to The People and not with the government, if that day shall ever come.

Originally Posted by Deanimator

[*]Don't be afraid to use sarcasm, mockery and humiliation. They don't respect you. There's no need to pretend you respect them.

From your first two sentences, I then apologize for my assumption of you thinking we didn't know the Constitution, which I inappropriately took personally. I didn't see the necessity in my first post to quote the entire 2nd Amendment since it was not necessary for my point.

I have to agree with BluesStringer on his response to the rest of this reply. Guerrilla tactics are exactly what would be employed if their was a revolution. That is, until military posts, air bases, etc. would be able to be taken over and their equipment confiscated. If you are unconvinced that guerrilla tactics can be used successfully, I'd like you to go back in time to the 1980's. The US supplied a guerrilla fighting force with rifles and ammunition and trained them. This guerrilla force held off the entire Soviet military at the time. This small force was located in Afghanistan. The people that we trained included such people as Osama Bin Laden.

Aside to Blues: Thanks for your comment about me.

Thanks Wolf_fire and Bluestringer for your posts, and everyone on this thread.

I went back and re-read my original post, and I realise it came across as very aggressive and combative against firearms; such was not my intention. I was trying to widen the thinking encourage everyone to see the other side of the argument, even if you don't agree with it.

I certainly could not hope to lecture anyone on the Constitution, American history, American Politics, the history of Arms in America, or pretty much anything you care to think of in relation to this thread. I became a US Citizen on 26th September this year - and bought my first handgun the next day. Until 26th September I was a UK Citizen.

I'm fortunate to live in a relatively crime-free city, and in an almost completely crime-free area of that city. I go to a target range for shooting (and we only have two in reasonable driving distance), there's nowhere else I could discharge a firearm and not draw undue attention, even if I was just plinking a target on my back lawn. When not at the range, or on the way to or from the range, my guns stay on my property, almost always locked in a safe.

Through gun ownership I plan to hone my shooting and general gun-handling skills, understand the responsibilities of gun ownership, and if the need arises, be able to defend myself and my family.

Almost every time someone quotes the 2nd Amendment, they only quote half of it.

So every firearms regulation since that short sentence was written has been trying to reduce the potential carnage caused by a sloppy amendment.

While I do wish they had phrased it differently, it's not sloppy at all when you know how things were written at that time; the language used, the way they added a preamble to many of the things they wrote. And if you also know what their obvious intentions were, based on the many other things they wrote on the subject, you can easily decipher what the intent of the 2nd was in their minds.

I only say I wish they had phrased in differently in light of the fact that current humans don't take the time to learn those things and they interpret it by current standards.

I agree completely with the comments about how we shouldn't assume that all the tanks and other big weapons will be used only against us. Many of our military will not side with the government if it comes to that. We'll have quite a few of those weapons ourselves.

Without my trying to be a jerk may I mention that, because of everything you learned as an UK citizen.... and might have to unlearn now, may I suggest learning more about the History of the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, reading what the Founding Fathers had to say about the Constitution, and why there is a Bill of Rights?

Please research anything and everything you can find about the 2nd Amendment... not just what "keep and bear arms" means but also why it is there. And to understand that the Bill of Rights is NOT something the government "lets" or "allows" us to do but is a list of things our Founding Fathers told the government it WASN'T allowed to do because the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights are "natural" rights given to each and every one of us by our Creator... not given by our government.

The distinction between the Bill of Rights being something the government "lets" us do and it being a list of things the people themselves told the government it cannot do is very important because it is the very basis of who is supposed to be in charge in this country... and it isn't supposed to be the government but is supposed to be "we the people".

Let me take the right to keep and bear arms...

Every human being on the planet has the right to keep and bear arms. We all were born with that right simply because we were born. The thing is... there are many governments all around the world (and even our own government in the U.S. is heading this way) that impose penalties upon anyone who dares exercise that right. And the only reason anyone, government or individual, would want to restrict the keeping and bearing of arms is so they can be more powerful and control those who don't have arms.

A very simple example would be a criminal wanting to rob, rape, or murder someone.. it is much easier, and even safer for the criminal, if the intended victim doesn't have a gun to fight back with.

Now... let me repeat that just a little bit differently...

A very simple example would be a government wanting to exert total control over the population's behavior, bank accounts, and freedom.. it is much easier, and even safer for the government, if the population doesn't have guns to fight back with.

Guns are great things for defending one's self from everyday criminals... and criminal governments too.

Before the anti gun trolls on the forum make any more stupid and uninformed comments, I suggest that they read not only the Constitution but companion documents, such as the Federalist Papers and the writings of Jefferson, Madison, Washington, and John Adams. These men did know a little bit about the Constitution and are a major defense against the revisionist history perpetrated by progressives. Americans had just fought revolution against the most powerful military in the world that had started with an attempt to confiscate the wepons of the colonists.

The Second Amendment was meant to be the guarantor of the individual liberties reserved for the people. Every time that the word "people" is used, it refers to individual liberties and not government powers. The word militia refers to the entire populace. There are no government powers in the Bill of Rights, only individual liberties and government limitations.

In the writings of the founders it is made clear that a fully armed populace protected against a growing government tyranny. The founders were afraid of a standing, organized military; because they knew it could be used to subjugate the citizens in the same manner that the British used an army to subjugate the colonists. The second part of the amendment refers to the obligation of all citizens to protect and defend the Constitution. The founders believed all government and organized military endanger individual liberty and limited government. Madison and other founders saw government to be a necessity but also the biggest danger to liberty.

The erosion of individual liberty began with the "Marbury versus Madison" decision of SCOTUS. The Supreme Court was intended be the weakest branch of government. Marshall stole power, not intended under the Constitution, by instituting "judicial review" of laws passed by the people's elected rrepresentatives. And progressives have been stealing our individual liberty for last 120 years. The second amendment is all that sill stands between the people and tyranny. The progressives see the second as the last remaining threat to their total control and their progressive Utopia. Their elimination of the second is being aided by the ignorance of citizens and lying advocacy of media. Our options for reversing the natural tendency of government to move towards tyranny are quickly fading. The U.S. is about to end in the same manner that all republics have ended since the beginnings of recorded history.

Thanks Wolf_fire and Bluestringer for your posts, and everyone on this thread.

I went back and re-read my original post, and I realise it came across as very aggressive and combative against firearms; such was not my intention. I was trying to widen the thinking encourage everyone to see the other side of the argument, even if you don't agree with it.

I certainly could not hope to lecture anyone on the Constitution, American history, American Politics, the history of Arms in America, or pretty much anything you care to think of in relation to this thread. I became a US Citizen on 26th September this year - and bought my first handgun the next day. Until 26th September I was a UK Citizen.

First, welcome and congratulations on making a decision to get more freedom in your life. Many Americans take such things for granted that freedom just *is* without having to decide for themselves how best to *get it*.

Unfortunately for you, that decision was made as our country's freedoms are waning. The "idea" of America may still represent some bastion of individual liberty overseas, but the reality here on the ground is that our government(s) have been steadily marching towards a more socialistic and European model of "freedom" for many decades. The 2nd Amendment is really the only thing that has the potential to prevent that march from reaching completion, but without the force of will in huge numbers, that potential will never be realized. Based on that calculation, my observation is that it will never be realized.

That said, it is much easier than you might think to find out what seemingly ambiguous parts of the Constitution or Bill of Rights really mean, and very little of it was indeed intended to be ambiguous at all. Without knowing how long you've been here or what you've done to educate yourself on our system of government during that time, may I suggest you delve as deeply as you can into The Federalist Papers. They were a series of newspaper articles written by three of our country's Founders, James Madison. Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay. Each article addresses a specific issue that The People needed to be informed about on the Constitution before it was ratified. It was the same years-long process that we can begin and be pretty well-versed in in a few weeks or maybe months now that our communication is virtually instantaneous and accessible to almost everyone 24/7/365.

You will find no ambiguity concerning commas, collective vs. individual rights or any other supposed controversy that your modern understanding of language may conclude existed back in the 1770s and 1780s as the foundation for this country was being forged. There is no "first half" or "second half" of the 2nd Amendment, there is only the full width and breadth of the Framer's intentions for writing it the way they did. It was not limited by the period during which it was written. It was not contemplated that its meaning should change because the lethality of weaponry might advance to where it is today. It was not contemplated as a limit on The People at all, but as a prohibition on government from having any constitutional authority whatsoever to limit or control The People's access to defend themselves from it - the government. The men describing the new Constitution via The Federalist Papers were revolutionaries. They distrusted the very government they were creating before it ever came into existence. They saw themselves as of us, The People, not as rulers or authoritarians. To think that the 2nd Amendment might be construed to be a limit on The People, or even construed as authorizing government to limit people's access to arms in any manner whatsoever, is to reveal a misunderstanding of what our founding documents mean at their very core.

The Federalist Papers will reveal all of those truths to you, about all things Constitution. My favorite writer is Madison. He was the most individual liberty-minded author of the three. Hamilton and he were often at odds, but through reading the back and forth between all three authors, a clear picture emerges of what the overall intentions were for every word, sentence, paragraph and complete document that chronicles our founding.

There are also links at The Federalist Papers link above to the full Constitution, Bill of Rights, Amendments to The Constitution subsequent to the BoR, and The Declaration of Independence. There is no reason why you shouldn't be able to "....lecture anyone on the Constitution, American history, American Politics, the history of Arms in America, or pretty much anything you care to think of in relation to this thread" within a relatively short period of time. The men who wrote those words were still subjects of Great Britain when the ideas, principles and system of government they intended to create were being formulated in their minds.

Originally Posted by 9mm in Eugene

I'm fortunate to live in a relatively crime-free city, and in an almost completely crime-free area of that city. I go to a target range for shooting (and we only have two in reasonable driving distance), there's nowhere else I could discharge a firearm and not draw undue attention, even if I was just plinking a target on my back lawn. When not at the range, or on the way to or from the range, my guns stay on my property, almost always locked in a safe.

Through gun ownership I plan to hone my shooting and general gun-handling skills, understand the responsibilities of gun ownership, and if the need arises, be able to defend myself and my family.

Whatever level of "gun enthusiast" you either remain or evolve into, is fine with everyone here. Not everyone is cut out to carry a weapon as a daily thing, but everyone should know about the rights that enable them to make such decisions for themselves, free of government intervention and/or intrusion. You should also read The Declaration of Independence (several times) and decide in your own mind if, back in 1776 as a British subject living in Colonial America, would you have remained a loyalist or chosen then to become an American Revolutionary? If it's the latter, there is no reason why you shouldn't adopt the same liberty-minded attitude today towards a government that is constantly usurping the ideals and principles expressed in that austere document, and subsequently codified into law by The Constitution 11 years later.

Blues

No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

Thanks Wolf_fire and Bluestringer for your posts, and everyone on this thread.

I went back and re-read my original post, and I realise it came across as very aggressive and combative against firearms; such was not my intention. I was trying to widen the thinking encourage everyone to see the other side of the argument, even if you don't agree with it.

I certainly could not hope to lecture anyone on the Constitution, American history, American Politics, the history of Arms in America, or pretty much anything you care to think of in relation to this thread. I became a US Citizen on 26th September this year - and bought my first handgun the next day. Until 26th September I was a UK Citizen.

I'm fortunate to live in a relatively crime-free city, and in an almost completely crime-free area of that city. I go to a target range for shooting (and we only have two in reasonable driving distance), there's nowhere else I could discharge a firearm and not draw undue attention, even if I was just plinking a target on my back lawn. When not at the range, or on the way to or from the range, my guns stay on my property, almost always locked in a safe.

Through gun ownership I plan to hone my shooting and general gun-handling skills, understand the responsibilities of gun ownership, and if the need arises, be able to defend myself and my family.

Welcome to our country and congrats on becoming a citizen of it. Unlike many countries, a citizen of the US has a great responsibility. We are supposed to be the government. What this means is the politicians, legislator's, etc. are there to do our bidding. They are not there to do their bidding. They certainly are not there to create a large Federal government. The Constitution is written to limit the power of the Federal government, by asserting that the people have certain rights that no man nor government may ever take away. Any law doing so would be considered un-Constitutional, and the Constitution is the greatest law of the land. To understand the true essence of the meaning of each of our rights as written, please turn to the Federalist papers. I do believe you will find them an extremely good read and you will get more insight on the foundations of this great country than with just about any other read.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
~ Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

Thanks Wolf_fire and Bluestringer for your posts, and everyone on this thread.

I went back and re-read my original post, and I realise it came across as very aggressive and combative against firearms; such was not my intention. I was trying to widen the thinking encourage everyone to see the other side of the argument, even if you don't agree with it.

I certainly could not hope to lecture anyone on the Constitution, American history, American Politics, the history of Arms in America, or pretty much anything you care to think of in relation to this thread. I became a US Citizen on 26th September this year - and bought my first handgun the next day. Until 26th September I was a UK Citizen.

I'm fortunate to live in a relatively crime-free city, and in an almost completely crime-free area of that city. I go to a target range for shooting (and we only have two in reasonable driving distance), there's nowhere else I could discharge a firearm and not draw undue attention, even if I was just plinking a target on my back lawn. When not at the range, or on the way to or from the range, my guns stay on my property, almost always locked in a safe.

Through gun ownership I plan to hone my shooting and general gun-handling skills, understand the responsibilities of gun ownership, and if the need arises, be able to defend myself and my family.

Welcome, your decision to become a US citizen I commend. It no doubt required contemplation on your part, as giving up ones homeland would be difficult to say the lest. I hope you are able to realize the freedoms you sought when you made this decision. Most Americans take for granted what they have and really have no idea what people around the world suffer daily.
~
That said, a number of posters have invited you to read about our Constitution and why our founding fathers produced the documents that would govern our country. I will offer you this as one who has learned from listening, honor that invitation as I did and learn what was done for us and why it was done in the first place. It astounds me each and every time I read about our founding fathers thinking and writings, such incite as if they knew what the future would hold for us. History for all intents and purposes repeats itself and will predict the future if only one will listen to it, we were told about it, governing documents were put into place to protect us, yet we as a people are right where our founding fathers tried so hard to steer us away from.
~
A lot of the participants on this forum are well versed and very open with their Constitutional knowledge, enjoy and learn.

I'd rather be a Conservative Nutjob. Than a Liberal with NO Nuts & NO Job